> it is completely appropriate for me to use my position as a bonafide authority to explain why vaccines are beneficial
Is the HPV vaccine beneficial?
Is an untested flu vaccine for the wrong strain beneficial?
This is more fallacious argumentation from you, and your revelation of vested interest weakens your position on this matter rather than supports it. That you cannot even be honest enough to admit that some vaccines may not be beneficial simply makes you untrustworthy and does exactly zippo and squat to convince any skeptic.
Show me some honesty and admit that a vaccine isn’t necessarily beneficial just because it’s a vaccine, and then we can perhaps have a real conversation on the issue.
Absolutely.
Is an untested flu vaccine for the wrong strain beneficial?
Untested flu vaccines are not licensed for sale by the FDA.
The flu vaccine is an extremely complex and nuanced subject. When the CDC, WHO, etc., get together twice a year--once for the northern hemisphere, and once for the southern--they use current data to predict what will be the circulating influenza strains something like 9 months in the future. That is analogous to trying to predict the weather next year based on the weather this year. However, despite the fact that they are trying to predict the future, they actually do a pretty good job at it. Yes, influenza is highly prone to mutation--but even when it mutates away from the predicted strains, it is still similar enough that the vaccine has partial effect. So a person receiving the vaccine might still get sick, but not as seriously. That can make the difference between life and death.
This is more fallacious argumentation from you, and your revelation of vested interest weakens your position on this matter rather than supports it. That you cannot even be honest enough to admit that some vaccines may not be beneficial simply makes you untrustworthy and does exactly zippo and squat to convince any skeptic.
So you, like most anti-vaxxers, would rather dismiss everything as some sort of logical fallacy, instead of discussing anything on its merits. That is a typical response of someone who knows the facts are not on his side, but cannot bear to adjust his opinion. Plus, you claim I am "untrustworthy" because I do not "admit" anything about your unscientific assertions. Not only is that a highly illogical "gotcha" argument, it is a technique frequently used by liberals.
Show me some honesty and admit that a vaccine isn’t necessarily beneficial just because it’s a vaccine, and then we can perhaps have a real conversation on the issue.
There it is again--making an unscientific assumption, and then saying that we can't have a "real" conversation because I do not accept your premise from the get-go.
Are all vaccines beneficial? That depends on the context. A better question would be, are all FDA licensed vaccines beneficial? Certainly, all of the recommended vaccines are. And other vaccines are very context-specific. For example, if you never plan to travel to a country where yellow fever is endemic, then a yellow fever vaccine is useless. (Caveat: I have been vaccinated against yellow fever and since immunity is probably lifelong, I am protected if I ever do go.) In the not distant future, I am going to Asia, where I will be exposed to diseases I have never encountered--you can bet that I will get vaccines I've never received before prior to going, for the simple reason that I don't want to die of something preventable.
Now, instead of demonstrating that you are adept at dismissing as a logical fallacy every idea that challenges your unscientific belief system, why don't you put some of your beliefs out there for examination? (That is a rhetorical question--I do not seriously expect you to present various anti-vax memes, since you already know I will rip them apart.)